Lately I've been trying to find ways to combine my belief in postmodernism (a form of philosophical idealism) with my adherence to Marxism, and historical materialism in particular. To do this I need to be able to justify why some truths are subjective and ideal and some are objective and material, and I have a very hazy idea of how this could be done. This will probably be incoherent because it's late at night and I only just began to think about this, but I'll share anyway.

Some fields study what exists (or is assumed to exist) regardless of humanity, such as physics and geology, and some study socially constructed components of the human world, such as sociology and economics. Likewise, some questions concern non-human entities and some human entities. The question of whether something ultimately exists is non-human, because the concept of ultimate existence was not created by humans and does not apply exclusively to the socially constructed world, and is therefore subjective. This is because:

1. A non-human entity does not have the universal meaning and purpose that humans ascribe to everything we create, whereas when one thinks of or discusses a human entity, one must accept tautologies which were shown to be true by previous thinkers or events.

2. All non-human questions are ultimate. It is extremely hard if not impossible to prove that something physically exists, since there are so many different criteria for determining what exists and so many different claims one could make depending on one's belief. It's much easier to prove that a given economic analysis is correct.

3. Humans are by definition fully capable of conceptualising human entities. The same cannot be said of abstract ones. This is an application of the agnostic belief that humans can't know the answers to ultimate questions to all abstract questions.

Even as I finish typing I have a nagging feeling that what I wrote made absolutely no sense whatsoever and that I need to go to sleep now because it's midnight and I have school tomorrow and my brain is tired...but whatever. What are your thoughts?

At 9/2/2014 6:12:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:You are way too young to be making posts with that many words, lady. Someone's gonna have to have a chat with your parents I think.

It's a bit late for me to be staying up, as well. I was meant to go to sleep at 7, but I can't find Teddy anywhere, so I stayed up thinking about historical materialism and objective vs subjective reality. I think I'll just have my bottle and go to sleep. In my cot. In Mummy and Daddy's room.

At 9/2/2014 6:10:29 PM, Material_Girl wrote:Lately I've been trying to find ways to combine my belief in postmodernism (a form of philosophical idealism) with my adherence to Marxism, and historical materialism in particular. To do this I need to be able to justify why some truths are subjective and ideal and some are objective and material, and I have a very hazy idea of how this could be done. This will probably be incoherent because it's late at night and I only just began to think about this, but I'll share anyway.

Some fields study what exists (or is assumed to exist) regardless of humanity, such as physics and geology, and some study socially constructed components of the human world, such as sociology and economics. Likewise, some questions concern non-human entities and some human entities. The question of whether something ultimately exists is non-human, because the concept of ultimate existence was not created by humans and does not apply exclusively to the socially constructed world, and is therefore subjective.

Please define 'ultimately exist'. Are you talking about ontology, or in the existance of some objective answer to socio or economical questions etc. Sorry but your last paragraph seems to be all over the place and it's hard to see what you are trying to say. The only thing I take away from 'non-human' is that something is true, or exists independantly of whether or not humans perceive it, which implies objectivity.

This is because:

1. A non-human entity does not have the universal meaning and purpose that humans ascribe to everything we create,

Humans can create non-human entities do they not? Why should none-human entities that humans create have 'universal meaning and purpose' when non-artificial entities so not? Sounds like special pleading.

whereas when one thinks of or discusses a human entity, one must accept tautologies which were shown to be true by previous thinkers or events.

... Wha?! So we are talking about humans now instead of human-constructs? Again this is special pleading, why should humans have this special case for them where only they have meaning and purpose?

I mean I have my own reasons why humans generally are more valuable, but that is a subjective, not an objective statement, since it is subjective based on the conscious entities that perceive other conscious entities (or themselves). A big lump of gold is worthless outside of a conscious entity to perceive it and value it. It has no intrinsic purpose.

As such I don't see how you can ever get to objectivity, much less how you can get to 'tautologies' based on that.

2. All non-human questions are ultimate. It is extremely hard if not impossible to prove that something physically exists, since there are so many different criteria for determining what exists and so many different claims one could make depending on one's belief. It's much easier to prove that a given economic analysis is correct.

Are we talking about ontology? Maybe I need to read up on Marxism, seems like you are on a different wavelength I don't understand. Because I simply have no idea how existance has anything to do with economic analysis....

Sounds like a bold claim. Humans are naturally very capable of understanding, recognising and perceiving humans, much more than other things (it's how our brains are wired), but it's an enormous leap to being fully capable of conceptualise one 'by definition'.

The same cannot be said of abstract ones. This is an application of the agnostic belief that humans can't know the answers to ultimate questions to all abstract questions.

You might be interested in reading about 'Fitches Knowability Thesis', which is an argument that not everything that is 'knowable' can be known, although I am not sure how relevant it is to what you are forwarding.

Even as I finish typing I have a nagging feeling that what I wrote made absolutely no sense whatsoever and that I need to go to sleep now because it's midnight and I have school tomorrow and my brain is tired...but whatever. What are your thoughts?

I either understood most of it and thought it was mostly nonsense, or I understood less than half of it and am waiting for you to correct me.

At 9/2/2014 6:10:29 PM, Material_Girl wrote:Lately I've been trying to find ways to combine my belief in postmodernism (a form of philosophical idealism) with my adherence to Marxism, and historical materialism in particular. To do this I need to be able to justify why some truths are subjective and ideal and some are objective and material, and I have a very hazy idea of how this could be done. This will probably be incoherent because it's late at night and I only just began to think about this, but I'll share anyway.

Some fields study what exists (or is assumed to exist) regardless of humanity, such as physics and geology, and some study socially constructed components of the human world, such as sociology and economics. Likewise, some questions concern non-human entities and some human entities. The question of whether something ultimately exists is non-human, because the concept of ultimate existence was not created by humans and does not apply exclusively to the socially constructed world, and is therefore subjective. This is because:

1. A non-human entity does not have the universal meaning and purpose that humans ascribe to everything we create, whereas when one thinks of or discusses a human entity, one must accept tautologies which were shown to be true by previous thinkers or events.

2. All non-human questions are ultimate. It is extremely hard if not impossible to prove that something physically exists, since there are so many different criteria for determining what exists and so many different claims one could make depending on one's belief. It's much easier to prove that a given economic analysis is correct.

3. Humans are by definition fully capable of conceptualising human entities. The same cannot be said of abstract ones. This is an application of the agnostic belief that humans can't know the answers to ultimate questions to all abstract questions.

Even as I finish typing I have a nagging feeling that what I wrote made absolutely no sense whatsoever and that I need to go to sleep now because it's midnight and I have school tomorrow and my brain is tired...but whatever. What are your thoughts?

Well, it's quite easy to show that something exists. If somebody says it doesn't, grab them by their hair, and bang their head into it repeatedly. Their cries of continuing pain are their recognition that the thing is physically existing. After all, if it didn't exist, they wouldn't feel it, and wouldn't be crying in pain, and if both he and the head cracker didn't exist, then their existence is non existence in the first place, as it is the existence that they share.

At 9/2/2014 6:10:29 PM, Material_Girl wrote:Lately I've been trying to find ways to combine my belief in postmodernism (a form of philosophical idealism) with my adherence to Marxism, and historical materialism in particular. To do this I need to be able to justify why some truths are subjective and ideal and some are objective and material, and I have a very hazy idea of how this could be done. This will probably be incoherent because it's late at night and I only just began to think about this, but I'll share anyway.

Some fields study what exists (or is assumed to exist) regardless of humanity, such as physics and geology, and some study socially constructed components of the human world, such as sociology and economics. Likewise, some questions concern non-human entities and some human entities. The question of whether something ultimately exists is non-human, because the concept of ultimate existence was not created by humans and does not apply exclusively to the socially constructed world, and is therefore subjective.

Please define 'ultimately exist'. Are you talking about ontology, or in the existance of some objective answer to socio or economical questions etc. Sorry but your last paragraph seems to be all over the place and it's hard to see what you are trying to say. The only thing I take away from 'non-human' is that something is true, or exists independantly of whether or not humans perceive it, which implies objectivity.

Sorry I took a while to respond! When I say "ultimately exist," I"m talking about the ultimate question of "what is real?" and whether a given entity is real in the sense meant by this question. "Non-human entities," in this context are concepts/questions/topics/whatever that were not created by humans.

This is because:

1. A non-human entity does not have the universal meaning and purpose that humans ascribe to everything we create,

Humans can create non-human entities do they not? Why should none-human entities that humans create have 'universal meaning and purpose' when non-artificial entities so not? Sounds like special pleading.

By definition, humans cannot create non-human entities. However when human entities are created, meaning and purpose are ascribed to them because the human mind wants to give things meaning and purpose.

whereas when one thinks of or discusses a human entity, one must accept tautologies which were shown to be true by previous thinkers or events.

... Wha?! So we are talking about humans now instead of human-constructs? Again this is special pleading, why should humans have this special case for them where only they have meaning and purpose?

I mean I have my own reasons why humans generally are more valuable, but that is a subjective, not an objective statement, since it is subjective based on the conscious entities that perceive other conscious entities (or themselves). A big lump of gold is worthless outside of a conscious entity to perceive it and value it. It has no intrinsic purpose.

As such I don't see how you can ever get to objectivity, much less how you can get to 'tautologies' based on that.

Ok, "entity," was a terrible choice of word. I meant human constructs. There are many tautologies that must be accepted in fields that are human constructs.

2. All non-human questions are ultimate. It is extremely hard if not impossible to prove that something physically exists, since there are so many different criteria for determining what exists and so many different claims one could make depending on one's belief. It's much easier to prove that a given economic analysis is correct.

Are we talking about ontology? Maybe I need to read up on Marxism, seems like you are on a different wavelength I don't understand. Because I simply have no idea how existance has anything to do with economic analysis....

I"m just using [ultimate] existence as an example of a non-human concept/question/topic/whatever, and economic analysis as an example of a human one.

Sounds like a bold claim. Humans are naturally very capable of understanding, recognising and perceiving humans, much more than other things (it's how our brains are wired), but it's an enormous leap to being fully capable of conceptualise one 'by definition'.

I should clarify this. A human entity, in this context, is a concept/question/topic that would not exist unless humans were there for it to be applied to, e.g. historical materialism. Maybe (and this is nought but speculation) some non-human entities are impossible for the human brain (mind?) to fully conceptualise. However, since human entities have already been conceptualised by humans, by definition we are capable of conceptualising them.

The same cannot be said of abstract ones. This is an application of the agnostic belief that humans can't know the answers to ultimate questions to all abstract questions.

You might be interested in reading about 'Fitches Knowability Thesis', which is an argument that not everything that is 'knowable' can be known, although I am not sure how relevant it is to what you are forwarding.

That sounds oxymoronic to me.

Even as I finish typing I have a nagging feeling that what I wrote made absolutely no sense whatsoever and that I need to go to sleep now because it's midnight and I have school tomorrow and my brain is tired...but whatever. What are your thoughts?

I either understood most of it and thought it was mostly nonsense, or I understood less than half of it and am waiting for you to correct me.

Even I don't fully understand this weird shiz I've come up with, but I have yet to see a good argument for philosophical materialism or social idealism, so for now I'm stuck with this strange blend of social materialism with philosophical idealism and need a way to justify it.

At 9/10/2014 12:32:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Nothing makes sense. The bible was written by man (or I'm not sure sometimes), but it still the zenith of human insight. We are so close to divine it is frightening.

That prehistoric reactionary ode to bigotry, the zenith of human insight?!?!

At 9/10/2014 12:32:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Nothing makes sense. The bible was written by man (or I'm not sure sometimes), but it still the zenith of human insight. We are so close to divine it is frightening.

That prehistoric reactionary ode to bigotry, the zenith of human insight?!?!

I fear for humanity...

There aren't 2 billion Christians for no reason, lady. And while I certainly think the philosophy expounded upon within is quite terrible at times, the manipulations are second to none and perhaps most utilitarian (how I hate that word). But it's the metaphysics grained into those manipulations I was talking about. Indeed, a religion takes precedent by best capturing reality. And then our "New Atheists" to me seem very quick to deny (perhaps death offers a forgiveness genial enough for them or something).

At 9/10/2014 12:32:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Nothing makes sense. The bible was written by man (or I'm not sure sometimes), but it still the zenith of human insight. We are so close to divine it is frightening.

That prehistoric reactionary ode to bigotry, the zenith of human insight?!?!

At 9/10/2014 12:32:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Nothing makes sense. The bible was written by man (or I'm not sure sometimes), but it still the zenith of human insight. We are so close to divine it is frightening.

That prehistoric reactionary ode to bigotry, the zenith of human insight?!?!

I fear for humanity...

There aren't 2 billion Christians for no reason, lady. And while I certainly think the philosophy expounded upon within is quite terrible at times, the manipulations are second to none and perhaps most utilitarian (how I hate that word). But it's the metaphysics grained into those manipulations I was talking about. Indeed, a religion takes precedent by best capturing reality. And then our "New Atheists" to me seem very quick to deny (perhaps death offers a forgiveness genial enough for them or something).

No, there are 2 billion Christians because of feudalism, colonisation and the fact that the choice in most countries until relatively recently was to be Christian or die. Christianity has been carried forward from this era, and church attendance has plummeted now that it's not totally socially unacceptable not to go to Church. Christians from Christian families have been indoctrinated into their beliefs a lot of the time. The problem I have with this religion is moral, not metaphysical. The Bible condones murder, rape, child abuse, slavery, human and animal sacrifice, genital mutilation and other sickening immorality that society is supposed to have abandoned, and is full of bigotry and hatred towards anyone who isn't a straight white man.

At 9/2/2014 6:12:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:You are way too young to be making posts with that many words, lady. Someone's gonna have to have a chat with your parents I think.

It's a bit late for me to be staying up, as well. I was meant to go to sleep at 7, but I can't find Teddy anywhere, so I stayed up thinking about historical materialism and objective vs subjective reality. I think I'll just have my bottle and go to sleep. In my cot. In Mummy and Daddy's room.

At 9/10/2014 12:32:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Nothing makes sense. The bible was written by man (or I'm not sure sometimes), but it still the zenith of human insight. We are so close to divine it is frightening.

That prehistoric reactionary ode to bigotry, the zenith of human insight?!?!

At 9/10/2014 12:32:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Nothing makes sense. The bible was written by man (or I'm not sure sometimes), but it still the zenith of human insight. We are so close to divine it is frightening.

That prehistoric reactionary ode to bigotry, the zenith of human insight?!?!

I fear for humanity...

There aren't 2 billion Christians for no reason, lady. And while I certainly think the philosophy expounded upon within is quite terrible at times, the manipulations are second to none and perhaps most utilitarian (how I hate that word). But it's the metaphysics grained into those manipulations I was talking about. Indeed, a religion takes precedent by best capturing reality. And then our "New Atheists" to me seem very quick to deny (perhaps death offers a forgiveness genial enough for them or something).

No, there are 2 billion Christians because of feudalism, colonisation and the fact that the choice in most countries until relatively recently was to be Christian or die. Christianity has been carried forward from this era, and church attendance has plummeted now that it's not totally socially unacceptable not to go to Church. Christians from Christian families have been indoctrinated into their beliefs a lot of the time. The problem I have with this religion is moral, not metaphysical. The Bible condones murder, rape, child abuse, slavery, human and animal sacrifice, genital mutilation and other sickening immorality that society is supposed to have abandoned, and is full of bigotry and hatred towards anyone who isn't a straight white man.

Seriously. You are more intelligent and insightful than people three times your age.

You have literally, single-handedly given me so much hope for the future of our world. Just with the posts in this thread.

Broadly, it is a rejection of the notion of objective natural reality and philosophical foundationalism. I don't fully agree with postmodernism, of course, (I'd describe myself as some kind of dualist, I guess) being a Marxist, but the concept of abstract reality being subjective and ideal is one that makes sense to me.

so for now I'm stuck with this strange blend of social materialism with philosophical idealism and need a way to justify it.

Why would you mix the two?

Because social idealism and philosophical materialism are both severely flawed. I want to combine the best parts of idealism with the best parts of materialism.

At 9/10/2014 12:32:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Nothing makes sense. The bible was written by man (or I'm not sure sometimes), but it still the zenith of human insight. We are so close to divine it is frightening.

That prehistoric reactionary ode to bigotry, the zenith of human insight?!?!

I fear for humanity...

Prehistoric? Explain.

The morals of that book are totally grounded in the time it was written in. It's full of racism, sexism, homophobia and advocacy of atrocities such as rape, slavery and slaughter of innocent humans and animals. The belief in fate and moral absolutism of the Bible are also highly primitive beliefs devised to reassure people and take away the terrible curse of individual responsibility and are no longer necessary now that we've accepted individual, or at least human, responsibility in society. But the main problem I have with the Bible is the discrimination and hate it propagates, and the fact that this hatred is now being justified by reactionaries (I'm looking at you, GOP...) who want to drag us back to the Biblical era simply on the grounds that said hatred was written in a book nearly two thousand years ago.

At 9/10/2014 12:32:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Nothing makes sense. The bible was written by man (or I'm not sure sometimes), but it still the zenith of human insight. We are so close to divine it is frightening.

That prehistoric reactionary ode to bigotry, the zenith of human insight?!?!

I fear for humanity...

Prehistoric? Explain.

The morals of that book are totally grounded in the time it was written in. It's full of racism, sexism, homophobia and advocacy of atrocities such as rape, slavery and slaughter of innocent humans and animals. The belief in fate and moral absolutism of the Bible are also highly primitive beliefs devised to reassure people and take away the terrible curse of individual responsibility and are no longer necessary now that we've accepted individual, or at least human, responsibility in society. But the main problem I have with the Bible is the discrimination and hate it propagates, and the fact that this hatred is now being justified by reactionaries (I'm looking at you, GOP...) who want to drag us back to the Biblical era simply on the grounds that said hatred was written in a book nearly two thousand years ago.

Heh heh heh.You're funny.

Provide an example of racism in the Bible. Provide an example of sexism in the Bible. And for the last *expletive* *expletive* time to every brainwashed atheist who makes this claim, provide one single instance where the Bible talked about rape in a positive light. Provide one Bible verse that says that slavery is good.Fate has actually been proven by science, as everything is ultimately predictable. Moral Absolutes have not been disproven last I heard.Ironically, it was the Republican Party that ended slavery in the United States.

Broadly, it is a rejection of the notion of objective natural reality and philosophical foundationalism. I don't fully agree with postmodernism, of course, (I'd describe myself as some kind of dualist, I guess) being a Marxist, but the concept of abstract reality being subjective and ideal is one that makes sense to me.

Well, Marx was an idealist. Wittgenstein was the one who said that Reality is bounded by the Mind.

so for now I'm stuck with this strange blend of social materialism with philosophical idealism and need a way to justify it.

Why would you mix the two?

Because social idealism and philosophical materialism are both severely flawed. I want to combine the best parts of idealism with the best parts of materialism.

Ok, so lets start with Marx: What is wrong with Marx, and his material theory?

At 9/10/2014 12:32:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Nothing makes sense. The bible was written by man (or I'm not sure sometimes), but it still the zenith of human insight. We are so close to divine it is frightening.

That prehistoric reactionary ode to bigotry, the zenith of human insight?!?!

I fear for humanity...

There aren't 2 billion Christians for no reason, lady. And while I certainly think the philosophy expounded upon within is quite terrible at times, the manipulations are second to none and perhaps most utilitarian (how I hate that word). But it's the metaphysics grained into those manipulations I was talking about. Indeed, a religion takes precedent by best capturing reality. And then our "New Atheists" to me seem very quick to deny (perhaps death offers a forgiveness genial enough for them or something).

No, there are 2 billion Christians because of feudalism, colonisation and the fact that the choice in most countries until relatively recently was to be Christian or die. Christianity has been carried forward from this era, and church attendance has plummeted now that it's not totally socially unacceptable not to go to Church. Christians from Christian families have been indoctrinated into their beliefs a lot of the time. The problem I have with this religion is moral, not metaphysical. The Bible condones murder, rape, child abuse, slavery, human and animal sacrifice, genital mutilation and other sickening immorality that society is supposed to have abandoned, and is full of bigotry and hatred towards anyone who isn't a straight white man.

Yes, everyone loves a bogeyman. Did you even read what I wrote before taking off on that rant?

At 9/2/2014 6:10:29 PM, Material_Girl wrote:Lately I've been trying to find ways to combine my belief in postmodernism (a form of philosophical idealism) with my adherence to Marxism, and historical materialism in particular. To do this I need to be able to justify why some truths are subjective and ideal and some are objective and material, and I have a very hazy idea of how this could be done. This will probably be incoherent because it's late at night and I only just began to think about this, but I'll share anyway.

First of all I want to say: will you marry me?...no? Oh well I can't very much kidnap you, and make you marry me *sly face*. For a thirteen year old this is spectacular. Creepiness aside, lets begin.

I think it would be slightly wise to realize the subject-object relationship, and how your philosophy may influence this relationship. So the first is that different forms of objects leave different impressions on the human mind, and from these impressions, by relation the to the Mind one can realize the Seinstruktur of these objects.

I do not get the first part because usually ideal thoughts are objective, for they possess the conceptualization of necessity, like Mathematics. Material impressions and thoughts on the other hand seem to be subjective, as are the senses.

I do not think these two schools can be resolved, for the acceptance of one, actively denies the other. There is a middle ground, where both theories are borrowed from, but no way to resolve both. Dialectics would have us use dialectic logic as an indirect practical tool, while Idealism (Hegel) would lead us to other paths. In any case lets see your brilliant attempt. :)

Some fields study what exists (or is assumed to exist) regardless of humanity, such as physics and geology, and some study socially constructed components of the human world, such as sociology and economics. Likewise, some questions concern non-human entities and some human entities. The question of whether something ultimately exists is non-human, because the concept of ultimate existence was not created by humans and does not apply exclusively to the socially constructed world, and is therefore subjective. This is because:

I disagree. While I believe you are right that "existence" is not a human construct, since existence is not a property, it is more so Being in itself. In any case this does not mean it is therefore subjective, 'tis be what I cannot gather. It seems by establishing it is not a human construct, you make it subjective due to human concerns.

To answer whether something exists is a troublesome one. For Heidegger it was resolved by Time. Ultimately we need an objective reality against which we can measure ourselves to ensure our existence. Whether it be the physical world of the positivists, or the God of the Idealists. This absolute measure I think is necessary: so I do not think Dasein could be subjective.

1. A non-human entity does not have the universal meaning and purpose that humans ascribe to everything we create, whereas when one thinks of or discusses a human entity, one must accept tautologies which were shown to be true by previous thinkers or events.

I think a priori would be a better word. Also animals are non-humans so I will just say transcendent. Am I correct in thinking that you mean to say there are entities which transcend or go beyond all possible forms of human experience or comprehension (or such entities could exist).

2. All non-human questions are ultimate. It is extremely hard if not impossible to prove that something physically exists, since there are so many different criteria for determining what exists and so many different claims one could make depending on one's belief. It's much easier to prove that a given economic analysis is correct.

Thats because a given economic analysis, or Mathematics is an a priori discipline. It is theoretical, and based on reason.

3. Humans are by definition fully capable of conceptualising human entities. The same cannot be said of abstract ones. This is an application of the agnostic belief that humans can't know the answers to ultimate questions to all abstract questions.

They can, through synthetic a priori. This is, I believe, inherently Logical Positivism, something which is self-refuting, even if appeling.

Even as I finish typing I have a nagging feeling that what I wrote made absolutely no sense whatsoever and that I need to go to sleep now because it's midnight and I have school tomorrow and my brain is tired...but whatever. What are your thoughts?

This is good. You should continue building it, even if it may be (for how can I know) be wrong building it will better you. :P Also if you want to discuss any of this in more detail in a *ehem* private *ahem* place PM me. :P

Ima jokings of course, Ima asexual. More importantly I think you are young and have some reading ta do. Like Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Introduction fer one. :P If you do start though, start from Plato, if yer read that, come to Aristoo. After dat Descartes, Berkeley, and then Hume. Then move to Kant. :P

At 9/10/2014 12:32:33 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Nothing makes sense. The bible was written by man (or I'm not sure sometimes), but it still the zenith of human insight. We are so close to divine it is frightening.

That prehistoric reactionary ode to bigotry, the zenith of human insight?!?!

I fear for humanity...

Prehistoric? Explain.

The morals of that book are totally grounded in the time it was written in. It's full of racism, sexism, homophobia and advocacy of atrocities such as rape, slavery and slaughter of innocent humans and animals. The belief in fate and moral absolutism of the Bible are also highly primitive beliefs devised to reassure people and take away the terrible curse of individual responsibility and are no longer necessary now that we've accepted individual, or at least human, responsibility in society. But the main problem I have with the Bible is the discrimination and hate it propagates, and the fact that this hatred is now being justified by reactionaries (I'm looking at you, GOP...) who want to drag us back to the Biblical era simply on the grounds that said hatred was written in a book nearly two thousand years ago.

Heh heh heh.You're funny.

Provide an example of racism in the Bible. Provide an example of sexism in the Bible. And for the last *expletive* *expletive* time to every brainwashed atheist who makes this claim, provide one single instance where the Bible talked about rape in a positive light. Provide one Bible verse that says that slavery is good.Fate has actually been proven by science, as everything is ultimately predictable. Moral Absolutes have not been disproven last I heard.Ironically, it was the Republican Party that ended slavery in the United States.

The Bible was racist towards anyone who was not an Israelite. There were other ethnic groups living in the Promised Land, and God told the Israelites "to smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them nor show mercy unto them. Neither shalt thou make marriages with them." [Deuteronomy, Chapter 7]. Mixed marriages were repeatedly denounced in Numbers, which also describes God commanding Moses to hang the Israelis who married Moabites. And non-Israelis weren't even allowed to be Jewish. [Deuteronomy 23:3] Later, Jesus said to a Greek woman who needed healing that "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Mark 7:25-30] It also views women as inferior, quoting St Paul as saying "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent," [1 Timothy 2:12] and giving wives the empowering advice to "submit to your husbands as to the Lord." [Ephesians 5:22] It encourages slavery, saying "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way," [Leviticus 25:44-46] and "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." [Ephesians 6:5] And there is a good reason for "brainwashed atheists," to claim that the Bible condones rape. It not only orders that a rape victim should marry their attacker ("If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." [Deuteronomy 22:28-29]) or in another instance be stoned to death ("If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbour's wife." [Deuteronomy 22:23-24]) but advises murder, forced labour and sex slavery here: "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Following the logic of moral absolutism, it is wrong to kill one person to save another person's life. That is ludicrous.

Broadly, it is a rejection of the notion of objective natural reality and philosophical foundationalism. I don't fully agree with postmodernism, of course, (I'd describe myself as some kind of dualist, I guess) being a Marxist, but the concept of abstract reality being subjective and ideal is one that makes sense to me.

Well, Marx was an idealist. Wittgenstein was the one who said that Reality is bounded by the Mind.

Marx developed the previously idealist dialectic in a materialistic way, and historical materialism is quite plainly materialism.

so for now I'm stuck with this strange blend of social materialism with philosophical idealism and need a way to justify it.

Why would you mix the two?

Because social idealism and philosophical materialism are both severely flawed. I want to combine the best parts of idealism with the best parts of materialism.

Ok, so lets start with Marx: What is wrong with Marx, and his material theory?

What would make it better.

I think dialectical materialism is spot-on in a social context, but not when applied to metaphysics. It doesn't account for consciousness, axioms or imagination, to name a few things. It seems a bit narrow-minded to me to say that the Universe is solely material.

I think dialectical materialism is spot-on in a social context, but not when applied to metaphysics.

That's because Marx was trying to solve the economic problem of too many poor people. Not some metaphysical problem of happyness or sadness.

It doesn't account for consciousness, axioms or imagination, to name a few things.

Well, Marxism was just trying to free people. Whether these people had a conscience or whatever was unimportant to them. Unimportant because they were basically workers or slaves.

It seems a bit narrow-minded to me to say that the Universe is solely material.

People only get lofty ideas of creativity and consciousness when they have free time. Marx essentially was not writing this for you, because you have an easy life. Marx was trying to solve why under Capitalism people have to sacrifice their quality time at home to work inside a 'sweatshop' for 18 hours a day.

I will add a question for you?

What about postmodernism?

That could be step 2. Once you are free from the shackles of work, you can stop reading Marx and sit around like the Greeks (with a lot of free time) and think about problems of existence-tialism, no.. ;)

At 9/2/2014 6:12:44 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:You are way too young to be making posts with that many words, lady. Someone's gonna have to have a chat with your parents I think.

It's a bit late for me to be staying up, as well. I was meant to go to sleep at 7, but I can't find Teddy anywhere, so I stayed up thinking about historical materialism and objective vs subjective reality. I think I'll just have my bottle and go to sleep. In my cot. In Mummy and Daddy's room.

...

Lol, that's hilarious. So much sass...You are by far one the smartest 12 or 13yo I know. Huh, I guess first impressions do work.

I think dialectical materialism is spot-on in a social context, but not when applied to metaphysics.

That's because Marx was trying to solve the economic problem of too many poor people. Not some metaphysical problem of happyness or sadness.

It doesn't account for consciousness, axioms or imagination, to name a few things.

Well, Marxism was just trying to free people. Whether these people had a conscience or whatever was unimportant to them. Unimportant because they were basically workers or slaves.

It seems a bit narrow-minded to me to say that the Universe is solely material.

People only get lofty ideas of creativity and consciousness when they have free time. Marx essentially was not writing this for you, because you have an easy life. Marx was trying to solve why under Capitalism people have to sacrifice their quality time at home to work inside a 'sweatshop' for 18 hours a day.

I will add a question for you?

What about postmodernism?

That could be step 2. Once you are free from the shackles of work, you can stop reading Marx and sit around like the Greeks (with a lot of free time) and think about problems of existence-tialism, no.. ;)

Sorry I'm not proletarian enough for you... :'(

Historical materialism is purely an identification and analysis of the socioeconomic basis of the proletariat's oppression, but dialectical materialism is also applicable to metaphysics and other branches of non-political philosophy. It's essentially the familiar dialectic process of thesis, antithesis, synthesis (of course, there are many modifications, but at base the Marxian dialectic shares its structure with the Hegelian and other idealist dialectics) combined with the materialist belief that matter is the fundamental substance in nature and the concept of a materially driven dialectic process. This is not solely applicable to socioeconomics.